Learning Outcome: Students will learn about the Doctrine of Estoppel as applied in UK and Bangladesh

1. Doctrine of
Estoppel
Preeti Kana Sikder
Lecturer, Department of Law & Justice
Jahangirnagar University

2. Central London Property Ltd v High
Trees House Ltd (1947)
• Claimants let a block of flats in London to the defendants on
a 99-year lease at an annual rent of 2500 pounds.
• In 1940, as a result of outbreak of war, the defendants were
unable to let many of the flats.
• Claimants therefore agreed to reduce the rent to 1250
pounds.
• This promise to accept a reduced rent was unsupported by
consideration.

3. Central London Property Ltd v High
Trees House Ltd (1947)
• At the end of the war, the property market
returned to normal and the flats were fully let.
• The claimants demanded that the defendants
should resume payment of entire rent from
1945.

4. What would you decide?

5. Hughes v
Metropolitan
Railway Co (1877)

6. Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co
(1877)
• Thomas Hughes owned property leased to the
Metropolitan Railway Company
• Under the lease, Hughes was entitled to compel the
tenant to repair the building within six months of
notice and he gave so in 1874.
• The Railway responded by inquiring whether the
landlord wished to purchase their interest in the
premises for 3000 pounds.

7. Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co
(1877)
• The landlord entered into negotiations for the purchase
of the lease but the negotiations.
• Once the six months had elapsed the landlord sued the
tenant for breach of contract and tried to evict the
company.
• The HoL held that the tenant was entitled to equitable
relief against forfeiture of the lease on the ground that
the running of the six-month period was suspended
during negotiation.

8. Denning J., held in
1947 that, the Central
London Property
were entitled to
demand the entire
rent from the date
when the flats became
fully let in 1945.

9. “
”
Where, by words or conduct, a person makes an
unambiguous representation as to his future conduct,
intending the representation to be relied on and to
affect the legal relations between the parties and the
representee alters his position in reliance on it, the
representor will be unable to act inconsistently with the
representation if by doing the respresentee would be
prejudieced.
Definition of Promissory
Estoppel

10. A representation as to future conduct
intending to affect legal relation
The representation must have been
relied upon
It must be inequitable for the
promisor to go back
The promisor’s right is not
extinguished
Acts as a shield, not a defence

11. When can a party be estopped?
• Where a clear and unequivocal promise or
representation was made which was intended to affect
the legal relations between the parties,
• When the promise or representation has been relied
upon by the promisee or representee (possibly to his
detriment) and
• When it would be inequitable to allow the promisor or
representor to go back on his promise or representation

12. Relation between
Consideration and Estoppel
Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988)

13. Expectation Interest
v
Reliance Interest
The Difference between a Contract
and an Equity

14. Hoffman v Red Owl Stores, Inc (1965)
• The Hoffmans owned a successful little bakery business
in a small town in Wisconsin.
• Mr. Hoffman wanted to go into the grocery business.
And he wanted to open a Red Owl franchise.
• So he got to talking to the local representatives of Red
Owl. They said that he'd have to put up $18,000 of his
own money to open a Red Owl Store

15. Hoffman v Red Owl Stores, Inc (1965)
• The representatives decided that one of the ways that the
Hoffmans were going to put together their money was by selling
their bakery business
• As a result, the Hoffmans bought a grocery store in another city,
and moved there. All the while, the negotiations with Red Owl were
dragging on and on
• The price for the Hoffmans kept going up, until it was what looked
like $250,000. Seeing the final price, the Hoffmans said no and
decided to take legal action for careless negotiation

16. How do you think the Court
can help the Hoffmans?
Can Red Owl’s Promise be enforced?

17. Hoffman v Red Owl Stores, Inc (1965)
• The Court decided that it could not put the Hoffmans
into a Red Owl store. Because their negotiations hadn't
reached a point where there'd been a firm, clear promise
on the part of Red Owl to do this, that, or the other
thing.
• The Hoffmans got their detrimental reliance-- the money
they had already put in, but not the Red Owl store, not
the benefit they had hoped to get.

18. Hoffman v Red Owl Stores, Inc.
(1965)
Though there was no documentation of an agreement,
the Court allowed compensation for detrimental reliance

19. Patrick Atiyah, an English lawyer has
stated in 1986-
• “Wherever benefits are obtained,
wherever acts of reasonable reliance
takes place, obligations may arise,
both morally and in law.”

20. Thank You